Washington University in St. Louis
Washington University Open Scholarship
Washington University / UMSL Mechanical
Engineering Design Project JME 4110
Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science
Summer 2021
JME 4110: Vibratory Parts Feeder
Adin Stambolic
Washington University in St. Louis, adin.stambolic@wustl.edu
Patrick Edward Vastola
Washington University in St. Louis, p.vastola@wustl.edu
Noah Herrin
Washington University in St. Louis, herrinn@wustl.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/jme410
Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons
Recommended Citation
Stambolic, Adin; Vastola, Patrick Edward; and Herrin, Noah, "JME 4110: Vibratory Parts Feeder" (2021).
Washington University / UMSL Mechanical Engineering Design Project JME 4110. 47.
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/jme410/47
This Final Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science at
Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University / UMSL
Mechanical Engineering Design Project JME 4110 by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open
Scholarship. For more information, please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu.
Washington University in St. Louis
Washington University Open Scholarship
Mechanical Engineering Design Project Class
Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science
Vibratory Parts Feeder
Adin Stambolic
Patrick Edward Vastola
Noah Herrin
Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mems411
This Final Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science at
Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mechanical Engineering Design
Project Class by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information,
please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu.
The purpose of a vibratory parts feeder is to move product from one location to another while sorting
or reorienting the objects. The prototype we built utilizes a concrete vibration motor (modified) that is
attached to a base frame assembly. That base frame is then attached to a sorting through via springs to
allow for vibratory oscillations from the motor.
JME 4110
Mechanical Engineering
Design Project
Vibratory Parts Feeder
Noah Herrin
Patrick Vastola
Adin Stambolic
Table of Contents
1
2
3
Introduction
1.1
Value proposition / project suggestion
4
1.2
List of team members
4
Background Information Study
4
2.1
Design Brief
4
2.2
Background summary
4
Concept Design and Specification
3.1
4
5
User Needs and Metrics
6
6
3.1.1
Record of the user needs interview
7
3.1.2
List of identified metrics
7
3.1.3
Table/list of quantified needs equations
7
3.2
concept drawings
7
3.3
A concept selection process.
8
3.3.1
Concept scoring (not screening)
8
3.3.2
Preliminary analysis of each concept’s physical feasibility
9
3.3.3
Final summary statement
9
3.4
Proposed performance measures for the design
9
3.5
Revision of specifications after concept selection
9
Embodiment and fabrication plan
10
4.1
Embodiment/Assembly drawing
10
4.2
Parts List
10
4.3
Draft detail drawings for each manufactured part
11
4.4
Description of the design rationale
11
Engineering analysis
5.1
Engineering analysis proposal
5.1.1
5.2
6
4
Signed engineering analysis contract
Engineering analysis results
11
11
12
12
5.2.1
Motivation
12
5.2.2
Summary statement of analysis done
13
5.2.3
Methodology
14
5.2.4
Results
14
5.2.5
Significance
14
Risk Assessment
6.1
Risk Identification
15
15
1
7
6.2
Risk Analysis
16
6.3
Risk Prioritization
16
Codes and Standards
7.1
Identification
16
7.2
Justification
16
7.3
Design Constraints
17
7.3.1
Functional
17
7.3.2
Safety
17
7.4
8
9
16
Significance
Working prototype
17
18
8.1
Prototype Photos
18
8.2
Working Prototype Video
19
8.3
Prototype components
19
Design documentation
9.1
Final Drawings and Documentation
21
21
9.1.1
Engineering Drawings
21
9.1.2
Sourcing instructions
21
9.2
Final Presentation
22
7
Appendix A - Parts List
22
8
Appendix B - Bill of Materials
22
9
Appendix C – Complete List of Engineering Drawings
23
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Basic linear vibrating feeder
Figure 2 - Vibratory feeder and base
Figure 3 - Patent drawing for a parts feeder
Figure 4 - Concept Drawing 1
Figure 5 - Concept Drawing 2
Figure 6 - Concept Drawing 3
Figure 7 - Concept Drawing 4
Figure 8 - Embodiment Drawing
Figure 9 - Signed Contract
Figure 10 - Vibration Analysis of System
Figure 11 - Structural Analysis Equations
Figure 12 - Risk Assessment Methology
Figure 13 - Prototype Photo 1
Figure 14 - Prototype Photo 2
Figure 15 - Motor
Figure 16 - Spring Supports
4
5
5
7
7
8
8
10
12
13
13
15
18
18
19
19
2
Figure 17 - Tube Support
Figure 18 - Tray
Figure 19 - Top Level Assembly
Figure 20 - Sub-Assembly 1
Figure 21 - Sub-Assembly 2
Figure 22 - Part Drawing 1
Figure 23 - Part Drawing 2
Figure 24 - Part Drawing 2
Figure 25 - Part Drawing 3
Figure 26 - Part Drawing 4
Figure 27 - Part Drawing 5
Figure 28 - Part Drawing 6
20
20
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
List of Tables
Table 1 - User Design Needs
Table 2 - Concept Scoring
Table 3 - Parts List
Table 4 - Risk Analysis
Table 5 - Vibration Severity Standards
Table 6 - Purpose Table
Table 7 - Bill of Materials
6
8
10
16
17
21
22
3
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
VALUE PROPOSITION / PROJECT SUGGESTION
The parts we envision in project 7 will need to be transported between the mixer, producer,
and modification station. Design inexpensive, modular, tunable vibratory feeders to move the parts
from one place to another. Ideally, the feeder can be programmed to change shape and size during a
run as the parts are modified.
1.2
LIST OF TEAM MEMBERS
Noah Herrin - Project Manager
Patrick Vastola - Documentation, CAD, and Codes & Standards
Adin Stambolic - Design Calculation and Scheduler
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION STUDY
2.1
DESIGN BRIEF
Design an inexpensive, modular and tunable vibratory feeder to move different size particles
from one place to another. The feeder can change according to the shape and size of the particles
while in use.
2.2
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
1.
https://www.mpelettronica.com/en/how-do-electromagnetic-vibratory-feeder-works/
Figure 1 - Basic linear vibrating feeder
This link gives a brief explanation how a vibrating feeder works. A linear vibrator works by inducing
a current in a coil at high frequency, pulling and pushing a nearby magnet which creates the physical
vibration.
2.
https://www.goughengineering.com/en/blog/vibratory-feeder-working-principle
4
Figure 2 - Vibratory feeder and base
This link gives a more in-depth explanation of a linear vibratory parts feeder.
3.https://patents.google.com/patent/US7413073B2/en?q=linear+vibrating+feeder&oq=linear+
vibrating+feeder
Figure 3 - Patent drawing for a parts feeder
Above is a figure from a patent for a “piezo-driven parts feeder”. It consists of a
moving table mounted on top of a stationary table via an electromagnetic vibrator connected
to two elastic parts. There is a magnet fixed to the moving table. A current is induced at a
high frequency causing the magnet to move the table back and forth.
5
3
3.1
CONCEPT DESIGN AND SPECIFICATION
USER NEEDS AND METRICS
Scale; 1 (least important) to 5 (most important)
Table 1 - User Design Needs
Project/Product Name: Vibratory Parts Feeder
Customer: Mark Jakiela
Interviewers: Patrick Vastola, Adin Stambolic,
Noah Herrin
Address: Washington University
Willing to do a follow up? Yes
Date: June 28, 2021
Type of user: ?
Currently uses: ?
Question
Customer Statement
Interpreted Need
Importance
Type of feeder?
Linear track
Transportation from
one place to another
5
Particles per minute?
1000 ppm
Speed
2
General size?
Fits on a desk
Size
2
Sort by size?
Yes
Sorting
4
What are your likes of
a vibratory feeder?
Tunable,
durable
Variable speed,
Durability
3
3
What are the particles
being deposited into?
bucket
Transportation
5
Do they need to be
oriented a certain
way?
Sorting
Sorting
4
What kind of shapes
will the particles
make? Symmetrical?
Rolling?
Convex hull
No angles
Sorting
4
How will the particles
enter the feeder?
Hopper/funnel
Transportation
5
6
3.1.1
Record of the user needs interview
See table above.
3.1.2
List of identified metrics
See table above.
3.1.3
Table/list of quantified needs equations
See table above.
3.2
CONCEPT DRAWINGS
Figure 4 - Concept Drawing 1
Figure 5 - Concept Drawing 2
7
Figure 6 - Concept Drawing 3
Figure 7 - Concept Drawing 4
3.3
3.3.1
A CONCEPT SELECTION PROCESS.
Concept scoring (not screening)
Table 2 - Concept Scoring
8
3.3.2
Preliminary analysis of each concept’s physical feasibility
Concept 1: For concept 1, there will be some difficulty around sourcing the components for
the trough. The sorting tray at the bottom might become difficult to fabricate to the necessary
specifications to work in the application of defect sorting.
Concept 2: This concept will have some physical limitations around cost. While this design is
well built for longevity, its cost might outweigh the gain from its longevity. That being said, the cost
of the materials is a necessary component for this project and may not be that big of a factor in the
long run.
Concept 3: The main concept restraint for this design is the motor. While this design is
commonly used in the field for small vibratory feeders, it would be difficult to service and replace.
Whereas having an independent motor would greatly simplify the servicing or replacement without
having to completely dismantle the whole unit.
Concept 4: This concept runs into the same issue as concept 3, the motor might cause
complications further down the line if/when service and/or replacement is needed.
3.3.3
Final summary statement
3.4
PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE DESIGN
Overall, the concept that we decided to go with was concept 2. While concept 4 did
technically win the scoring, we are unable to source the motor that would be required and therefore
cannot proceed on with it. However, concept 2 – being only two points away - was so close to concept
4 so it will not be a noticeable downgrade in any way. Because of this we had no reservations going
with this concept instead.
3.5
REVISION OF SPECIFICATIONS AFTER CONCEPT SELECTION
Compared to the other concepts, its ability to transfer products effectively, efficiently, and in
the manner that we want goes above the other options. It will have greater adjustability and will be
able to move more products – hopefully hitting that 1000 parts per minute goal. Even though it will be
compact in nature, it will be able to manage these large loads due to effective designs and proper
movement of products. While it may slightly lack in its orientation goal of the product, the result of
transferring the product to a bucket will be unmatched. Because of the design and certain features
within that design, this feeder will save on some of the intricate welding that will be required, and
more importantly, will save on some of the very large costs this project will entail. There are
obviously some things we are worried about such as the orientation of parts and some certain
components, however, we will be able to make adjustments as we go and figure out mechanisms to
ensure our feeder delivers the parts in the most efficient way possible.
9
4
EMBODIMENT AND FABRICATION PLAN
4.1
EMBODIMENT/ASSEMBLY DRAWING
Figure 8 - Embodiment Drawing
4.2
PARTS LIST
Table 3 - Parts List
No.
Item Description
Vendor
Part Number
Unit
Unit
Cost
Qty.
Material
1
US Stock 110V, 100W Motor
eBay
164178084183
Each
$69.99
1
2
Tempered Steel Compression
Spring
McMaster
Carr
96485K135
Each
$11.75
4
Carbon steel
3
Plywood, 11/32" x 4' x 8' sheet
Home
Depot
112590
Each
$33.33
1
Pine Wood
4
1in x 3in x 8ft. Kiln-Dried
Whitewood
Home
depot
418545
Each
$10.42
1
Whitewood
5
Vibration-Damping Mount w/
Unthreaded Hole
McMaster
Carr
60525K25
Each
$4.08
4
PVC Plastic
6
#8 x 1-1/2 in. R4 Multi-Purpose
Star Drive Flat Head Screw
Home
Depot
96085
Box
$9.98
1
Steel
7
Titebond III 8 oz. Ultimate
Wood Glue
Home
Depot
202960636
Each
$5.97
1
Glue
10
4.3
DRAFT DETAIL DRAWINGS FOR EACH MANUFACTURED PART
See appendix C for detailed drawings.
4.4
DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIGN RATIONALE
During the embodiment design part of this project, we narrowed down some of the
features and materials ideal for this build. I will discuss those rationales and engineering
analysis below.
First, the subject of features was heavily discussed during the embodiment part of the
project. We discussed the necessary components needed for this design and some other ones
that would be beneficial but not critical. Of those, we decided on the base-frame design for the
project. This design allowed for us to build the parts feeder to last and use less expensive
materials, of which I will get into later. Additionally, this design was allotted for us to build it
in the time frame allotted for this class.
Second, we chose the material of wood as the primary choice for our vibratory parts
feeder. This material allowed us to be proficient in our delivery time and meet the deadline for
this project. This was primarily driven by the lead-times/availability of materials and the
commonality of tools available to build wooden projects. While a steel version might last a
little longer, the materials would be difficult to get within the timeframe of this project.
Finally, the size of the vibratory parts feeder was decided upon via the approximate size
of a desktop. Due to the size of the particles from Group 7’s project, the size of the feeder
would not need to be larger than that would fit on a desktop. The particles that Group 7 is
creating will be ~6mm tetrahedral shaped.
5
5.1
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS PROPOSAL
Analysis done before build
1. Identify major areas for errors – NH
a. We will work through to identify areas with potential error within our chosen
prototype. These errors can/will include:
i. Ease of build
ii. Cost of project
iii. Longevity of product/machine
iv. Tools available for prototype construction – will dictate what materials
can be used
v. Feasibility of design – too complex and we will not meet the deadline
2. Plan the build timeline for the project - PV
3. Identify long-lead items – AS
11
Analysis done after build
1. Structure analysis – NH, PV, AS
a. Verify the base frame and trough are structurally sound
b. Verify the frame to trough connection is secure and will retain longevity during
operation.
2. Motor analysis - PV
a. Analyze motor at different speeds to determine which one(s) work the best
3. Parts sorting analysis - AS
a. Allow vibratory parts feeder to operate with tetrahedral parts to determine if the
trough and sorting features work as intended.
4. Cost analysis - NH
a. Verify project was done within budget.
b. If not;
i. Identify the sources of overspending in the project.
Noah Herrin - NH
Patrick Vastola - PS
Adin Stambolic - AS
5.1.1
Signed engineering analysis contract
Figure 9 - Signed Contract
5.2
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
5.2.1
Motivation
The points of analysis were carefully chosen to fully look at the critical aspects of this project.
The main motivation behind these analysis points is to be as efficient as possible in preparation for the
prototype build and generate the best outcome after the prototype is complete. Before the prototype
build, we will identify some major areas of possible error. These areas include; ease of build, cost
projection, longevity of machine, tools available for construction, and feasibility of design.
Identifying these areas will help us plan to avoid mishaps along the way.
After the prototype, we have a set list of areas to review. Those areas are as follows; structural
analysis, motor analysis, parts sorting analysis, and cost analysis. Each of these points will be driven
off the whole process of prototype development and execution. Retaining documents and notes from
along the way will be vital to analyzing the prototype in retrospect.
12
5.2.2
Summary statement of analysis done
To summarize the engineering analysis done on this project, I have broken it down
into several categories; vibrations, structural, and functional. For the vibration’s analysis
(figure 1), we used formulas below to calculate the oscillating motion of the trough/springs.
Next, we used statics to calculate the structural rigidity of the build (figure 2). Lastly, we
formulated guidelines that we wanted the function of the operation to follow.
Figure 10 - Vibration Analysis of System
Figure 11 - Structural Analysis Equations
13
5.2.3
Methodology
In order to perform the described analysis above, we had to break it down into several
sections. For the initial analysis, we used the risk predictor tool to project areas where our attention
should be focused on. We outlined 10-15 risks that we believe could cause the project to be delayed.
The top items generated from that tool were out of focus before going into the prototyping stage of the
project. The main areas for concern evolved around the schedule and budget for the project. For the
schedule, we used the Microsoft project timeline created for the project management and
collaboration appendix 3 to project the deadlines of each task. This helped us identify some areas of
error based on current standing and expected hours to complete. For the cost, we utilized the cost
breakdown spreadsheet from project management and collaboration appendix 5 to track out materials
needed and ordered to verify we stayed on budget.
The analysis done after the prototype build was more hands-on, whereas the “before” analysis
was more hypothetical. We analyzed the frame members by loading the system down with the
expected product weight and measuring any deflection in the frame or trough. Additionally, we
visually inspected the trough supports and springs when the system was underweight to verify it was
handling the load properly. Next, we analyzed the motor by means of dropping the product on the
trough and calculating the speed at which it passed and fell off the end. The motor speed can be
altered by how fast the product stream is moving. Furthermore, while the product is running through
the trough, we inspected how the parts sorting feature was working by visually identifying the parts
were being oriented properly. Lastly, a cost analysis will be done on the final cost of the build. This
can be calculated by adding up the materials purchased.
5.2.4
Results
The results from our analysis above provided two things. First, the analysis of the physical
components allowed for us to see how this would hold up. Second, the hypothetical analysis showed
us the risks possible, the costs of delays, the overall projected cost of the project, and the added cost
by delays.
Looking at the analysis of physical components, we can surmise that the structure will hold
up to the expected forces exerted by the vibrations of the motor and springs. Also, reviewing the
results from the hypnotical analysis we can determine that the project has a few sources of possible
risk. These areas of risk can be combated with extra attention, so they do not fall behind.
5.2.5
Significance
How will the results influence our prototype? What materials did we use and what dimensions?
The results from our two types of analysis have meant that the design of our vibratory parts
feeder will slightly change. Due to structural forces, the base of the feeder will need to increase in
overall size. Additionally, the motor originally spec'd will need to be changed due to function of the
trough and base. Furthermore, the trough design will change slightly depending on how well the
14
sorting feature works. This is something we have theorized but not proven in a real-world test. This
will be tested during the building of the project and improved upon as time progresses.
The material needed for this project was originally going to be steel. However, during the risk
analysis we discovered that the metal shops we originally thought would be available to us were
closed due to maintenance and/or upgrades. From this information, we then decided on wood as our
primary material for the project. The base frame and trough would be made of wood and most of the
other components would use steel, such as fasteners and springs.
Next, the dimensions of the build would need to change due to the material changes and
structural forces needed. Originally, the design called for 18” base length by 6” base width. This area
will increase by a factor of one and a half. That being said, the design will be as-built from this point
on and we will make updates when we have built the actual project. Additionally, the height will
inevitably change due to springs available to us within the spec we need.
6
RISK ASSESSMENT
Figure 12 - Risk Assessment Methology
6.1 RISK IDENTIFICATION
The risks of this project include, but are not limited to:
●
●
Short-term rigidity
Schedule Alignment
15
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
6.2
Task Delegation
Materials Ordering
Budget
Testing
Analysis and documentation
Long-term reliability
Initial Project Scope
Limited Access to Tools
Limited access to specific parts
Motor speed control
RISK ANALYSIS
Table 4 - Risk Analysis
6.3 RISK PRIORITIZATION
Given the analysis of the risks, we decided to focus on the following items; materials used to address
long-term concerns, ordering parts ahead of time to address the lead times concern, and fine tuning
the project scope to address the delays concern. The aforementioned risks, among the rest of the risks,
can be found in the photo above.
7
7.1
CODES AND STANDARDS
IDENTIFICATION
With the knowledge that springs would be an integral part to the performance, they were a
logical piece of the assembly to compare to current codes and standards. Springs are manufactured to
very specific sizes and properties. Values such as K-value, inner and outer diameter, type of steel,
wire diameter, length when compressed and max load all dictate when and where they can be used.
The compression springs used in this assembly needed to be a certain length and stiffness to produce
effective vibration. The following standards indicate recommended range of vibration for springs in
different applications.
7.2
JUSTIFICATION
16
The first code was chosen because the springs would be directly behind how our tray would
vibrate. If our springs were too stiff or too loose, the tray wouldn’t vibrate enough or vibrate too
much, respectively. Taking into account the shape of the spring, naturally, a cylindrical helical
compression spring would be our best option. The codes and standards allowed us to further learn
about the values that would impact performance. The second code was chosen because knowing the
severity of vibration for our motor would be paramount to identifying if our project would fail or
succeed. Too little and there'd be little more than a murmur. Too much and the project itself may
collapse. The code helped us identify if the vibration would be good or satisfactory in this regard.
7.3
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
See below.
7.3.1 Functional
ISO 22705 - Cold Formed Cylindrical Helical Compression Springs
7.3.2 Safety
ISO 10816 - Vibration Severity Standards
Table 5 - Vibration Severity Standards
7.4
SIGNIFICANCE
Identifying codes and standards before the prototype or engineering work has begun is crucial
to the success of the build. Recognizing the standards similar to what is followed in the field can
greatly improve the odds of identifying mishaps early into the project. It is for this reason that
identifying and following ISO standards is so significant to the success of the project.
17
8
8.1
WORKING PROTOTYPE
PROTOTYPE PHOTOS
Figure 13 - Prototype Photo 1
Figure 14 - Prototype Photo 2
18
8.2
WORKING PROTOTYPE VIDEO
Vibratory Parts Feeder
8.3
PROTOTYPE COMPONENTS
Figure 15 - Motor
1. Motor – Our motor was a 110V, 3.8A, 6.5kg, 3600 RPM, with two 0.6lb offset
weights located on either end of the motor. Because this provided too powerful of a
vibration, it was modified so that the weights were cut in half in order to provide a
more stable vibration. The motor was bolted into our frame.
Figure 16 - Spring Supports
2. Spring Supports – Our spring supports were created by taking angled pieces of wood
and screwing in a plastic pipe support on both pieces. A metal bracket was then
19
screwed into both the angled piece of wood and the frame to give some rigidity to the
support. A spring was then placed within the supports to give it additional bounce.
This was done 4 times (2 on each side of the frame) to give proper support to the tray.
Figure 17 - Tube Support
3. Tube Support – Tube support that was placed in the middle of our design. This was
done in a similar fashion by taking 2 angled pieces of wood and screwing in the
plastic pipe support. 2 different pieces of pipe (one goes inside the other) were then
placed with the plastic to act as a sort of pseudo-pneumatic system to connect our
frame to the tray.
Figure 18 - Tray
20
4. Tray – Tray made from plywood with the dimensions of 23.75 in by 15 in. The border
was made using plastic corners. This was then connected to the 4 spring supports on
the side with the middle tube support as well.
9
DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
9.1
FINAL DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTATION
9.1.1 Engineering Drawings
See Appendix C for the individual CAD models.
9.1.2
Sourcing instructions
Given the bill of materials below (appendix B), sourcing the materials required for this project
should be relatively easy. The majority of the components are from McMaster Carr and a home
improvement store (Lowes or Home Depot). The motor was purchased on eBay, but another online
seller would also suffice.
Table 6 - Purpose Table
No
Item Description
Purpose
1
US Stock 110V, 100W Motor
The motor is intended to vibrate the trough and will be mounted to the base
2
Tempered Steel Compression
Spring
These springs transpose the force/vibrations of the motor to the trough.
3
Plywood, 11/32" x 4' x 8'
sheet
The plywood will be used not only for the bottom of the base but also the
bottom of the trough
4
2in x 4in x 8ft. Kiln-Dired
Whitewood
This wood is used for the base assembly
5
Vibration-Damping Mount
w/ Unthreaded Hole
These will be used as the feet for the base unit
6
#8 x 1-1/2 in. R4 MultiPurpose Star Drive Flat Head
Screw
These screws will be used to fasten the base frame together
21
7
Titebond III 8 oz. Ultimate
Wood Glue
The wood glue is used to secure the base and trough
8
SharkBite Plastic Suspension
Clamps
These clamps are used to attach the base from to the trough
9.2
7
FINAL PRESENTATION
See link in section 8.2
APPENDIX A - PARTS LIST
See section 4.2 for parts list.
8
APPENDIX B - BILL OF MATERIALS
Table 7 - Bill of Materials
No
Item Description
Vendor
Part Number
Unit
Unit
Cost
Qty
Material
Total
1
US Stock 110V, 100W
Motor
eBay
393426794827
Each
$69.99
1
N/A
$69.99
2
Tempered Steel
Compression Spring
McMaster
Carr
96485K135
Each
$11.75
4
Carbon steel
$47.00
3
Plywood, 11/32" x 4' x 8'
sheet
Home
Depot
112590
Each
$33.33
1
Pine Wood
$33.33
4
2in x 4in x 8ft. Kiln-Dired
Whitewood
Home
depot
418545
Each
$10.42
1
Whitewood
$10.42
5
Vibration-Damping Mount
w/ Unthreaded Hole
McMaster
Carr
60525K25
Each
$4.08
4
PVC Plastic
$16.32
6
#8 x 1-1/2 in. R4 MultiPurpose Star Drive Flat
Head Screw
Home
Depot
96085
Box
$9.98
1
Steel
$9.98
7
Titebond III 8 oz. Ultimate
Wood Glue
Home
Depot
202960636
Each
$5.97
1
Glue
$5.97
8
SharkBite Plastic
Suspension Clamps
Lowes
818224
Each
$0.55
1
Plastic
$4.40
22
9
APPENDIX C – COMPLETE LIST OF ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
Figure 19 - Top Level Assembly
Figure 20 - Sub-Assembly 1
23
Figure 21 - Sub-Assembly 2
Figure 22 - Part Drawing 1
24
Figure 23 - Part Drawing 2
Figure 24 - Part Drawing 2
25
Figure 25 - Part Drawing 3
Figure 26 - Part Drawing 4
26
Figure 27 - Part Drawing 5
Figure 28 - Part Drawing 6
27